Detroit council postpones demolition of aging Commercial Group 222 building to allow engineering study

The Detroit City Council on Tuesday postponed for one week a proposed amendment to a demolition contract for a long-vacant building identified as Commercial Group 222 after members pressed city staff for an engineering assessment and clearer cost estimates to determine whether the structure can be stabilized and preserved.

Council President Pro Tem James Tate, speaking during the public session, urged the city to consider temporary stabilization instead of immediate demolition. "Instead of demolishing this building, why can't we go in, trash it out, and then board it up, to allow for this space to be repurposed, redeveloped, at a later date when we have some developer that wants to move into this very hot area of the city," Tate said.

The discussion centered on a demolition amendment (contract 605836‑A1) that the administration brought forward to extend time for abatement and demolition. The contract listed on the agenda identified Inner City Contracting LLC and a total contract amount of $410,453.47 for demolition work. Luan Counts, group executive of construction and building operations, told the council that consultants who photographed the interior refused to enter some areas because of safety concerns and that parts of the roof are missing, leaving exterior walls vulnerable to collapse. "My concern really is overall safety," Counts said. "With enough money, it could be saved. My concern is how long is that going to take, because we do still have a facility, a location that could potentially be a collapse hazard."

Terry Daniels of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer said the administration faces a federal timing constraint tied to American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) obligations. "Because the property was currently scoped out, and contracted for demolition prior to the treasury obligation deadline of 12/31/2024, if we were to remove that property, then we would in essence be de‑obligating those funds and we can't enter into a new contract to review costs associated with preserving it or the cost of preserving the building with ARPA," Daniels said.

Council members pressed for a clearer path forward that would allow the council to evaluate preservation. Member Scott Benson asked whether the city had produced a cost analysis comparing stabilization and preservation to demolition. Counts said no formal engineering estimate had yet been completed but that the department could commission an assessment and an engineering cost estimate if the council wanted the work.

Council Member Coleman A. Young II (noted in the meeting as Member Young) and others said they supported preservation in principle but wanted technical confirmation that the building could be saved and what that would cost. Counts and Daniels said such a study would require contracting outside consultants and could take several weeks to complete.

After the exchange, the council voted to postpone the demolition amendment for one week to allow staff to prepare an engineering assessment and clearer cost estimates and to continue discussions with finance and the administration about possible funding sources and timing.

The postponement preserves the administration's ability to proceed with demolition if staff and the council conclude the building is unsafe and preservation is impractical, but it also opens a short window for advocates of preservation to pursue a study of structural conditions and costs.

The item had been under a demo hold at least since last September, a point noted during the discussion. The council did not take a final vote on demolition during Tuesday's session; the agenda item was set for reconsideration at the next formal session.